This weekend’s Tasmanian state election is likely to be the last major election in 2025, barely halfway through the year, but that means the rest of this year will be redistribution season.
Two federal redistributions, in Queensland and Tasmania, are set to resume later this month when Parliament returns. Federal redistributions in South Australia and the ACT are also due soon. I will return to this topic in the next few weeks.
But the first redistribution of 2025 is the state redistribution of Queensland. The last redistribution took place prior to the 2017 election, and those boundaries have now been used for three state elections – no other state holds redistributions so infrequently.
Submissions from the public are now open. They will close on August 6. The Commission has not set out precise dates for the rest of the process, but they expect the draft boundaries to be published in early 2026.
For this post, I am going to run through the current population statistics and what that suggests for where seats may shift. There has also been a lot of comments about this redistribution in the comments sections of Queensland 2024 seat guides – you can bring the conversation to this post.
The Queensland Redistribution Commission (QRC) has published their own helpful discussion paper that covers a lot of the same data I will be analysing here. It’s worth examining because it also runs through the criteria the Commission will need to consider.
In short, each electorate needs to fall within 10% of the average enrolment (or ‘quota’) as of May 2025. There is also a ‘large district number’ which means that electorates with a land mass of over 100,000 square kilometres are granted ‘notional electors’ equivalent to 2% of the square kilometres in their electorate.
Right now four seats benefit from these notional electors, and they make up the equivalent of 70% of an electorate. Three of these four seats are currently below the average quota even with those notional electors, with one of them more than 10% under. All three of those seats are projecting to be more than 10% under the quota by 2032. So it is likely that the land mass of these seats will grow. There are two other seats with a land mass of 70-80,000 square kilometres, so it’s possible another seat could benefit from this rule.
This produces a conundrum when it comes to calculating how big a seat should be. The ‘average’ is based on a total population divided by 93 seats. But the actual number of electors that can contribute to a seat’s enrolment is actually about 93.7 seats, likely to go up slightly more. So the average seat should be drawn to be slightly above the average.
The QRC has also published enrolment projections for June 2032. These don’t appear to carry the same weight as the current figures. Unlike in a federal redistribution, there is no requirement that every seat fall withins a certain range, but a sensible Commission would aim to draw the faster-growing districts with a smaller starting population. Mapmakers are often conservative and thus do the opposite, making minimalistic changes which leave the faster-growing areas with above-average enrolments, but they shouldn’t.
Further down in this post, I’ve posted a map showing how much each seat varies from the 2025 and 2032 quotas. But I’ve also summed up the totals for each geographical region of Queensland.
Where one seat is under quota and its neighbour is over quota, it is relatively easy to adjust the border without making more dramatic changes. But when whole regions are well under- or over-quota, that is when more significant shifts are required, and potentially could see seats abolished or new seats created.
The first two columns of data reflect how much each seat varies from the actual quotas. Those quotas do not factor in the notional electors in the large districts, although those notional electors are included in those seats’ fulfillment of the quotas. That explains why these numbers don’t add up to zero. The last two columns adjust the quota upwards to include the existing notional electors, but can’t take account of new notional electors created if those seats are made larger. They do add up to zero.
The seats of urban south-east Queensland are significantly over quota. If it weren’t for the large district allowance, I’d argue that we’d see a seat in the regions abolished and one created in the city, but that may not happen. By 2032, the 61 seats in this area are expected to contain almost 63 quotas of electors.
When we look at a closer level, we can see that Ipswich and the Sunshine Coast have grown the fastest, with Ipswich expected to have a lot more growth over the next seven years.
The southern half of Brisbane is a third of a seat under quota. One difference between my analysis and that of the QRC is that they have split out the suburbs on the southern fringe and northern fringe of Brisbane, and merged Brisbane City into one area. There are a handful of seats in southern Brisbane that are well over quota: Logan is particularly over quota, as is the neighbouring Jordan (included in Ipswich) and Coomera (included in Gold Coast). But more established southern suburbs are consistently under quota. Those seats will likely have to expand south to absorb the surplus population in Coomera, Jordan and Logan.
The northern half of Brisbane has grown faster, and this growth is more even, although Murrumba has grown very fast. While the Gold Coast is due to grow, the region currently has about the right number of voters for its eleven seats. Gaven is well under-quota, but Coomera has enough surplus voters to top it up.
The seats of regional Queensland are consistently under quota. The seats around Cairns are about in line with the quota, but seats further south will likely need to grow. The three Townsville seats are about a quarter of a seat short of the third quota, and are surrounded by other seats falling under quota.
Submissions will close in early August, and I am planning to make a podcast to discuss those submissions along with the federal redistributions. There are plenty of directions the Commission can go in, but it seems likely that seats in the urban areas surrounding Brisbane will get smaller, potentially with a new seat created on the southern or northern edge of Brisbane, and the regional seats will have to grow. But there are a range of options for how the map can be drawn.
Finally this map shows how much each seat deviates from the average, both in 2025 and the projected numbers for 2032.
Exactly there were numerical reasons for not doing it.
There’s no way to collapse the outback seats into 2 atm.
My Redcliffe runs along a pretty defined boundary and shifting Moreton island out would have pushed it over the -10%.
Because there was no to do it without causing problems for Cook. I tried moving Charters Towers out and Tablelands in but the numbers didn’t stack up.
Because I abolished Mirani instead abolishing Callide simply wasn’t possible.
The number,bers simply didn’t stack up this time around
There was only justification for abolishing 1 regional seat and 1 Brisbane seat. The projected numbers in 2032 would become the current numbers next redistribution and I don’t think Callide will be abolished simply redefined. Based on the projected numbers gc and ipswich will need another seat in 2032. Maybe another Sunshine Coast seat but that would probably be a hybrid seat with Moreton Bay again. Next time I’d say a north Brisbane seat would go to be replaced by an ipswich seat.
The questions were rhetorical John.
And in any case, at least one submission created a seat from Karumba to Dirranbandi. As much as I prefer not to create a gigantic outback seat, it is clearly possible.
Yes but that would never happen they would get flooded with objections.
Il correct my last post. Sunshine Coast won’t be needing new seat nor will Moreton Bay.
Based on my numbers there will probably be a ipswich/lockyer crossing and a Brisbane north/Moreton Bay crossing
Overall i transferred 839,592 or 22.42% of voters
I’m going to continue using my status as a Callide resident to say: its pretty understandable to abolish this seat, its not the best for COI’s, so if its abolished I’d probably be happy
I think Mirani has the biggest case for abolition still though Callide is probably a close second.
@Real Time Because the numbers are not correct to do that right now. The Electoral Act requires that they be no more than 10% under or 10% over at the time of the redistribution. In my case I’ve tried to create a zero point – that at some time over the next seven years electorates which are over quota will become under quota, and vice-versa. That’s not possible to do in all seats because growth and development is “lumpy”.
I’ve already suggested that Moreton Island be transferred to Lytton now and the numbers are acceptable.
With the anticipated population drop over the next seven years in Mount Isa the ability to merge Cape York into Traegar (and the removal of the weighting for Large Areas) then that result becomes viable. In that case shifting Mareeba and Tablelands OUT of Traegar will make more sense.
There are already a number of submissions calling for the removal of Callide – to a large extent that is dependent on 1. What happens to the Townsville population and 2. What happens to the SEQ population.
I try to abide by the principle of Chesterton’s Fence – don’t make changes if you don’t know what the effect will be. Jeffrey Waddell did a great demolition job on the QRC numbers from the last redistribution, despite the fact that a number of submissions warned them about rubbery numbers.
Well, I respect the viewpoint of both of you, but I contest that it is possible to achieve everything I rhetorically spat into the air, on the numbers. Why? I just did it (thanks again Angus).
Say hello to the new seat of Traeger, stretching from Burketown to Thargomindah, with Hughenden and Alpha as the eastern boundaries. The new seat would be 8.38% above the quota in 2025, but fall to -1.48% by 2032, thereby respecting Yore’s Law of Electoral Enrolment Projection Variance.
It’s goodbye, so long, and thanks for the memories to Callide, which is the big loser of this strictly theoretical redistribution. Callide is cannibalised by Gregory, which vaults east and takes most of its territory (Calliope goes to Gladstone and Gin Gin goes to Burnett). Don’t worry though, fellow mapmakers: Gregory is still a large seat, with its eastern boundaries including Gayndah and Biggenden.
(In an alternate universe, the paragraph above swap “Callide” with “Gregory”, “Gregory” with “Callide”, “east” with “west”, and “Gayndah and Biggenden” with “Emerald and Springsure”. Either way, one seat now exists where previously two did dwell).
To accommodate the new sparkling seat of Traeger, let’s say hello to its ugly stepsister, Hill! The new Hill expands significantly to take in many, many new hills, mountains, valleys, streams and glorious ghost electors, adding the communities along the Gulf Development Road, and the communities along the Gregory Developmental Road, including Charters Towers and Clermont – it becomes a lot like the old Dalrymple in that regard. Once upon a time, Tablelands used to expand out towards Karumba too.
Hill retreats up to the Atherton Tablelands, and its former footprint on the Cassowary Coast is split between Mulgrave and Hinchinbrook just south of Innisfail. This is possible because Cook has to take in Kuranda, resulting in a slight slide of the Cairns urban seats to the south.
Hinchinbrook donates Burdell and Saunders Beach to the Townsville urban seats, such that Townsville, Thuringowa and Mundingburra all sit at quota. Burdekin takes in Wulguru and Cluden and remains in quota
At the other end of the state, Warrego takes in the Western Downs communities (despite the proven grand idiocy of their local council), returning gloriously to quota once everything west of Morven is given to the Traeger Inland Empire. I do believe this is referred to as The Great Detachment under a subsection of Yore’s Law. It’s worth pointing out that Warrego and the New Gregory/Callide Frankenstein Electorate both respect Yore’s Law.
This deals with the regional seats; the issue of the south east can be fixed in adjustments with those seats, a process entirely unreleated to the creation of the Great Inland Katterite Empire of Traeger.
If I, a mere idiot with a wi-fi account, can collapse three outback seats to one in less than an hour, it shouldn’t take much imagination from professional cartographers to do the same.
@Real Talk I like the idea of having my own law. 🙂
And you’re right, my submission was more cautious than just changing everything in one hit. One of the other reason for the pause as noted was the need to change two pieces of legislation first – one being the removal of Large Area weighting and the other being changes to electoral offices and staff, both of which are outside of the QRC.
Technically the new Traegar would stretch to Boigu Island in the mouth of the Fly River.
At the moment my Nanango is almost a Sunshine Coast seat – a product of massive SEQ population growth. That growth is going to accelerate over the next seven years and regional seats will have to stretch even further. Jeff Waddell’s submission is excellent even without maps, but he spends quite a bit of energy detailing how the QRC completely got the projections wrong last time.
@John I had to remove Moreton Island from Redcliffe. It has no transport links with Redcliffe, only Clayfield and Lytton. I chose Lytton based on the fact that Moreton Island is within Bonner federally. Then it only has to move out of the BCC ward of Deagon into Wynum Manly to have it part of the same electorates.
@mark yore if they havent removed it since the transport links dissapeared theres no reason they will do it.
i wanted to do it unfortunately the way i drew my redcliffe removing the island sent it ove the -10%. ive drawn redcliffe theorugh jabiru canal, down boarmand road and elizabeth avenue theough snook street all the way down to the houghton highway this puts it at about -9.74% on current electors but balanaces out on projected numbers at -3.35%. so if its not done this time il defeinately do it next time. assuming they dont reengage the ferry. by that argument they should be removing lord howe island from port macquarie since there are no links there to. and really it should be in KS not sydney given that sydney airport is the only way to get there